Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4133 (MAD)

P. Sendhamarai Raj v. K. Kuppusamy

2018-11-08

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant revisions are preferred by the petitioner as against the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court dated 18.01.2013 in Crl.A.Nos.35 and 34 of 2012 by confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 14.05.2012 in C.C.Nos.276 and 275 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Krishnagiri. 2. The respondents herein in the both Criminal Revision case filed a complaints against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.276 and 277 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the full fledged trial, the learned trial Court found the accused guilty and thereby recorded conviction in both the cases and imposed a sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved over the findings of the learned trial Court, the instant revision petitioner filed appeals before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.A.Nos.35 and 34 of 2012. Further, both the appeals were dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved over the order of dismissal by the appellate Court, the instant revision cases have been preferred by the petitioner by raising several grounds. 3. The case of the respondent herein before the trial Court is that the petitioner availed the service of Tarus-Tipper lorry for monthly rent from the respondent. As there was dues payable towards rent accordingly, the petitioner was approached by the respondent for the payment of rent, in turn the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.684395 and 034807 for a sum of Rs.2,14,434/- and Rs.1,17,916/- respectively. Thereafter, on 25.04.2009, the said cheques were presented by the respondent for collection through his bank and on 02.05.2009, both the cheques were returned as insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent caused legal notice to the petitioner and filed two complaints before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Krishnagiri in C.C.Nos.276 and 275 of 2012. During the trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On the other hand, the petitioner was examined as defence witness and no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner. 4. During the trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On the other hand, the petitioner was examined as defence witness and no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner. 4. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, both the Courts below have failed to consider the business transaction and failed to appreciate the account transactions produced by the petitioner herein as Ex.D-1 for the period between 24.04.2007 and 25.08.2008. Further, the specific case of the respondent is that the cheques in dispute were issued by the petitioner for the arrears of rent of the usage of the tipper lorry for the period from June 2008 to September 2008. At the same time the Ex.D-1 would clearly show that the rent was paid by the petitioner on 25.08.2008 and the same was not denied by the respondent herein. So, the averments made by the respondent in the complaint that the cheques were issued for the arrears of rent for the period that is June 2008 to September 2008 is totally false, but the same has not been properly considered by the Courts below. At the same time, the trial Court recorded the conviction only on the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act without appreciating the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the same would clearly prove the claim of the respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in both the cases contended that though the petitioner pleaded before the Trial Court that the aforesaid cheques were issued as excess payment, he has not taken any steps either to make intimation to stop the payment to the concern bank or to send legal notice to the respondent herein, or to reply for the statutory notice. At the same time the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to establish his pleas that the cheques were issued as excess payment. On the other hand the petitioner deposed contradictorily in his cross examination as follows: “TAMIL” Hence, according to the learned counsel for the respondent that both the Courts below have correctly concluded the case and recorded the conviction, which, in no way required any kind of interference in any manner. 6. I heard M/s.K.Anusuya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the respondent in both the criminal revision cases and perused the entire materials available on record. 7. 6. I heard M/s.K.Anusuya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the respondent in both the criminal revision cases and perused the entire materials available on record. 7. Though the learned counsel of the petitioner has contended that the accused is not excepted to prove his defence by leading strong evidence in order to rebut the presumption by raising a reasonable, probable defence, the only requirement of the accused is to adduce sufficient evidence on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. In the instant case, the accused has failed to raise any probable defence to rebut the presumption as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by leading cogent evidence to disprove the case of the complainant either by producing oral or documentary evidence. At the same time, during the course of chief examination, the petitioner deposed that the service of tipper lorry of the respondent was not availed by the petitioner’s company for the period from October, 2007 to February, 2008, but the Ex.D-2 produced by the petitioner itself would clearly show that he has frequently paid some amount to the respondent through cheque transactions between the period that is 24.04.2007 and 25.08.2008. On the other hand the petitioner admitted his signature and issuance of cheques as excess payment, but the same has not been proved by him by adducing any evidence. In view of the above discussion, the Courts below have recorded the guilty of the accused that the cheques were issued by him to discharge is legal liability. 8. As noticed herein above, conviction was entered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner has to show that appreciation evidence by the Courts below is utterly perverse or the conclusion arrived by the Courts below are totally against the weight of the evidence, so as to compel this Court to interfere with the conviction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. So, this Court finds that the complainant has proved his case on facts including the legal liability against the revision petitioner, execution of the cheques in question and also compliance of the statutory requirements. Further, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity committed in the conviction made by the Courts below. 9. So, this Court finds that the complainant has proved his case on facts including the legal liability against the revision petitioner, execution of the cheques in question and also compliance of the statutory requirements. Further, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity committed in the conviction made by the Courts below. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction rendered by the learned trial Court and the same was confirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court as against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act calls for no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the judgment of Courts below are confirmed. Accordingly, both the instant criminal revision cases are failed and deserved dismissal and thereby dismissed.